Forum menu
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692[/url]
She obviously planned to run the cyclist down, so why is it not attempted murder and a much lengthier sentence?
Given the cyclist had previously kicked in her wing mirror and antagonised things, then yes 3 years is probably reasonable.
3 years and 10 year driving ban would have been better.
About right, though the driving ban should be longer IMO. Perhaps it wasn't attempted murder because she didn't set out kill that cyclist that day and the final ramming was the end to a series of events.
Why the cyclist rode in front of the car I don't know. I do know I wouldn't have been there. In a similar incidents I've been careful not to put myself in a place where the car could be used as a weapon. I've given up chasing cars down after one ran a red light trying to get away and came very close to a collision.
I'd be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to beat the shit out of them I'd get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.
Remember kids, cyclists aren't people, they're just cyclists 😐 kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO
she should get three years for being on the phone when there's someone else in the car. There really are some dangerous moronic people around.
First thing I did on reading this article was look up the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder. The lowest starting point for spontaneous incidents (which this is) is 9 years. The range for spontaneous incidents is 6-20 years depending on various factors. On that basis, I think 3 years is very lenient, but of course for att murder (unlike successful murder) you have to prove the intent was to kill, which you'd struggle to do here without a confession.
kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO
And everybody else's.
Which is why she's going to prison.
kicking a wing mirror..[is] daft
It's just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who's in the right. Not defending her actions in the slightest but if I'd booted off someone's miror I'd expect a come back.
3 years, though she'll probably do half that at most, is still a fair chunk of your life. If she'd have killed him it'd be a lot more, I would've thought.
Isn't murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?
So this would be closer to manslaughter.
Rubbish sentence either way.
I'd be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to [b]beat the shit out of them[/b] I'd get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.
I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action. The driver in this case did not reverse and have a 2nd or 3rd go.
Agree with Edukator though, infuriating a driver then getting in front of them to receive a red mist payback is almost Darwin award territory.
Isn't murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?
Isn't that "premeditated murder" (or is that a US thing)? Murder vs manslaughter is all about intent I thought.
Person shoots someone with a shotgun, seriously injuring them.
3yrs prison and a 4 year ban from owning a shotgun.
As if.
This should never have been treated as a driving offence. The sentence is obviously ridiculously lenient and totally disproportionate to the offence which, had the criminal picked any other weapon, would have been far longer.
The "provocation" is totally irrelevant, morally and legally.
It's just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who's in the right.
People do daft things when angry or scared. Necessary rarely comes in to it in the heat of the moment. I once, regrettably, kicked a set of rear lights in on a car. This was after the driver had almost run me down, then pretty much said I deserved it for not paying road tax (as a pedestrian). It was his lights or him. He ran back to his car and drove off.
I called the police, told them what had happened and paid for the damage. Results would have been worse had I not moved as quickly as I did. I'm just glad I broke his lights rather than him.
I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action
Chasing somebody down in s mobile, seriously heavy chunk of metal and then purposefully hitting them with it has to be worth at least six bat hits. Does nobody have a comparison chat e handy? 🙂
Cougar almost right yes.
Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.
This driver should never be allowed a licence to drive a motorised vehicle in the UK for the rest of their life.
Send a simple clear message that using your car as 1.2T battering ram simply is not going to be tolerated , no matter what the provacation.
Cougar almost right yes.Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.
I think you have successfully undermined your own argument. She [i]intended[/i] to knock them off their bike. She successfully managed that. The fact that she is either too stupid, ignorant or in such a red mist that she did not consider knocking someone off their bike might kill them too does not mean she [i]intended[/i] to try and murder them.
I do agree she should never be allowed to drive again however.
funkmasterp wrote lots
Muchos lolz, especially the comparison chart of harms.
But seriously, I've done very similar on more than one occasion. How I ever got away with it I'll never know. As previously claimed, I'm quite lucky.
I have the ability to think before I act now so just shrug or at worst glare. Just not worth the potential consequences for either party, even with just fists it can go very wrong.
Convert I don't know what you are talking about.
Nowhere did I say that she should have been tried for attempted murder. That said a decent prosecution could have put together a case, but the risk of acquittal would probabaly have been high.
What I said is this should never have been treated as a driving offence. GBH is an obvious option.
My point is driving offences should be reserved for cases where the standard of driving is the relevant factor. This was a person using a car as a weapon because it was the most convenient weapon to hand. Whether it was a car or a knife or a gun is irrelevant to the offence and so the Offences Against the Person Act would have been far more appropriate prosecuting legislation.
So this would be closer to manslaughter.
You can't attempt manslaughter though.
Would be interesting to know whether she turned the corner and veered off her journey path to purposely follow the cyclist. Could you not argue that at the moment she made the turn the intent was there and therefore premeditated?
The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter ****wittery of the average motorist.
That she wasn't banned from driving for life (in the way that a firearm licence would be revoked for a comparable gun offence) is greatly troubling but also indicative of how society has learnt to trivialise driving-related crime no matter how callous the actions of the driver.
Life is a very long time to be banned for. 3 years in prison and 10 years trying to find work with a criminal record and no driving license is plenty of time to realise the error of your ways.
Only luck separated this driver and her being a murderer. Wouldn't want her driving anywhere near me, ever.
The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter ****wittery of the average motorist.
This pretty much sums it up for me. Three year sentence and a lifetime driving ban would seem like a better punishment.
What purpose would a longer sentence serve?
Would anyone else be deterred? does she need to be punished more? does she need longer to be rehabilitated?
You can't attempt manslaughter though.
Well there is that.
What purpose would a longer sentence serve?
None really. I think a lifetime ban would serve more purpose by removing a clearly volatile individual from the road. People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures. I could be wrong though.
I think i'll leave it to the experts. 3 years it is then
Yeah I'm with you Funk
Once again, a lenient conviction to someone using their motor vehicle as a weapon against a cyclist, IMO.
The sentence given here is the minimum I would like that van driver to get, from that recent publicised incident, where the cyclist was forced off the road during a wreckless overtake.
I think this case should have been more prison time and a longer, perhaps even lifetime, driving ban.
The courts need to show drivers that using their vehicles aggressively against other vulnerable road users will not be tolerated. I should not have to spend ~£200 on a front and rear video camera to record every road ride a take, on the off-chance some twonk tries to mame me.
People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures.
Isn't that just a guess though ?
Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.
[url= http://www.grayandcosolicitors.co.uk/section-20-assault-and-section-18-assault-grievous-bodily-harm/ ]Section 18 and 20[/url]
I think it should fall under the section 18 category in the link. Chasing somebody down and purposefully hitting them with a car. They must have a good idea of the damage that's going to cause and it's not going to be minimal. Only my opinion of course
Neal there's a million examples. Here's one:
10 years for GBH
That plus a lifetime driving ban and I'd have been content.
Based on some recent cases I'm amazed she got three years. An acquittal or suspended sentence would be more likely
Apparently you can now get ten years in the slammer for downloading a film.
So it is about in line with the current craziness.
She intended to knock them off their bike.
I don't how you can prove what she intended either way, including that she 'only' intended to knock him off.
Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.
Quite interesting to compare the case to this one:
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) ]Tony Martin[/url]
i think if i had used a disproportionately large object to ram a cyclist into a tree causing a three day stay in hospital the GBH charge would get me more than the 3 years she got
It is not just a driving offence its just a a common assault with a vehicle as the weapon of choice. Clearly she must have realised it stood a good chance of serious harm section 18 offence IMHO
Its pretty hard to argue the offence was not a deliberate hitting of him with the car;actually its impossible...she did not even deny it she said her BF did it not that she never meant to do it it was just a swerve to avoid a ???? and i drove off because??I don't how you can prove what she intended either way
Honestly she clearly rammed them
WHy or what damage she wanted to inflict is conjecture [ without a confession] but that she did it intentionally is not in question
It's assault with a deadly weapon, let's not mince words here.
Manslaughter at best.
manslaughter requires an death but where you did not intend to murder them..a punch to the head resulting in death being an example of manslaughter
Given its an unintentional murder you cannot be charged for an attempted manslaughter only attempted murder hence we have the assault laws
Not quite Junk - the mens rea for murder is that the intent is to cause either death or serious harm.
Ok that's fine, assault with a deadly weapon then.
Is there a legal difference between stabbing someone with a kitchen knife in the heat of argument, or running someone over with a 800kg vehicle due to road rage?
Matty yes it seems that there is and that is what a number of us (including me) find so incredibly frustrating.
Crowd funded private prosecution anyone? I'd chip in £100 for that.